Karnataka Court October 1990 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Seetha Bai Vs. Rent and Accommodation Controller
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-15-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4072; 1990(3)KarLJ284
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The first respondent initiated proceedings under Section 10A of the Karnataka Rent Control Act to evict the unauthorised occupant. The petitioner who is the owner questioned the proceedings and asserted that the building was not controlled by the provisions of Part-II because it was a new building. The proceedings were initiated in January 1986. But according to the landlady-petitioner the building was constructed and completed by about October or November 1985 and therefore the relevant provisions of the Act were not applicable to the building in question in January 1986.2. The landlady pointed out that there was some dispute between the landlady and the Bangalore City Corporation and therefore she had to file a suit for declaration regarding her title to the site and this suit was decreed on 21-7-1984. Only thereafter in the vacant site the landlady was able to complete the construction. Till the said date, in view of the pendency of the litigation, she w...
Kap Steel Ltd. and Another Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board and Another
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: AIR1991Kant220; ILR1990KAR4205; 1991(1)KarLJ50
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these three writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the legality of the demand made by the respondent -- Karnataka Electricity Board ('the Board' for short) of certain amounts as commitment charges.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are these : (i) In W. P. No. 10544 of 1980. This petitioner-company was promoted by one of the partners of the firm Ramchand Jagdishchand, with the object of establishing a mini steel plant at Whitefield near Bangalore. He applied to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board for allotment of requisite land for constructing the factory at Whitefield in the year 1973. Simultaneously, he applied to the Karnataka Electricity Board for sanction of high tension electric power required for the steel plant and informing the Board that they may be requiring the power supply fromabout November or December. 1984. The Electricity Board gave sanction of 6000 KW of electric power by communication dated 30-1-1974 (Annexure-B). The r...
B.D. Basavaraj and Another Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer and Ano ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR113(KAR); [1991]188ITR113(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ403
M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, two assessees have assailed the validity of the second proviso to rule 9(c) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1957, as ultra vires the Act, viz., the Karnataka Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act'). They have further prayed for quashing of annexures E to L to the petitions which comprise assessment orders or reassessment orders under section 36 of Act accompanied by the demand notices in accordance with such order. 2. It suffices for us to state that, in the case of B. D. Basavaraj-the petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 10945 of 1982-the assessment years in question are 1976-77 to 1979-80 and in the case of B. D. Viswanath-the petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 10948 to 10951 of 1982-the assessment years are 1976-77 to 1980-81. 3. In the course of the arguments before us, learned counsel, Sri Shivaram, has not pressed his challenge to the validity of rule 9(c) as the same has already been uphel...
H.A.K. Rao Vs. Union of India
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1991KAR943; [1991]189ITR322(KAR); [1991]189ITR322(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ378
Chandrakantaraj Urs, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioner who is a chartered accountant has challenged the constitutional vires of section 44AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inter alia, on the ground that, between the professions not enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 44AA and other professions, a discrimination is made inasmuch as the professions enumerated are required to maintain books of account to be inspected by the Income-tax Officer to ascertain their income while other professions not so enumerated in sub-section (1) but falling under sub-section (2) if the income exceeds the amount mentioned in the said sub-section are required to maintain the accounts. Prima facie, we do not find any such discrimination because the enumerated professions under sub-section (1) to section 44AA fall definitely into a category of professions by and large regulated by statutes which in turn case more obligations on those persons to maintain accounts such as lawyers, chartered accounts, doc...
G.F. Hunasikattimath Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: [1992]75CompCas266b(Kar); ILR1990KAR3881; 1990(2)KarLJ452
K. Ramachandraiah, J. 1. The petitioner was the complainant and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were accused in P. C. R. No. 88 of 1989 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, IV Court, Bangalore City (for short 'the Magistrate'). It arose out of a private complaint presented by the petitioner complainant under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are liable to be punished under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988) (for short 'the Act').2. The case of the complainant as alleged in his complaint was that respondents Nos. 2 to 4 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the accused ' ) issued a cheque (exhibit P-3) for Rs. 1,000 in his favour in respect of certain amount they had received under an agreement marked as exhibit P-1. When the said cheque was duly presented, it was returned by the bank with the endorsement 'acco...
Shri Dharmarayaswamy Temple Vs. Chinnathayappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-12-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4242
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. This petition is presented by Sri Dharmarayaswamy Temple, Bangalore, represented by its Committee of Dhamadarshis questioning the legality of the order of the Land Tribunal, Bangalore North Taluk allowing the applications filed by respondents-1 to 10 under Section 48-A(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and granting them occupancy rights in respect of land in Sy. No. 79 of Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk.2. The brief facts of the case and the history of the previous litigation regarding the claims of respondents-1 to 10 for grant of occupancy rights are these:-(i) Sarvamanya Neelasandra village, Bangalore North Taluk was a religious and charitable Inam in favour of the petitioner temple. The former State of Mysore enacted the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. Under the provisions of the Act all religious inam lands stood vested in the State Government with effect from 1-4-1959, on which date the Act came into force. The...
Smt. Gangamma and Another Vs. Agricultural Income-tax Officer
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]188ITR133(KAR); [1991]188ITR133(Karn); 1990(3)KarLJ599
S.R. Rajashekara Murthy, J.1. The karta of the Hindu undivided family, one B. G. Gurappa, consisting of himself and his wife, died on May 12, 1980. There was a partition in the family between the father, Gurappa, and his son on April 25, 1973. Subsequent to the said partition, the late Gurappa and his wife, Smt. Gangamma, constituted a smaller Hindu undivided family and this Hindu undivided family was assessed from the year 1974-75 onwards. 2. After the death of B. G. Gurappa on May 12, 1980, the respondent issued notices to Smt. Gangamma, the widow of B. G. Gurappa, and B. G. Gurudev, the son of the late Gurappa, treating them as legal heirs of the deceased. The two notices issued are produced as annexures A and B and the respondent proposed to make an assessment on the agricultural income for the year 1979-80 in their hands. These two notices are challenged by the petitioners, Smt. Gangamma and Gurudev, in these writ petitions. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, after t...
Dattaram Advertising Private Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: [1991]81STC394(Kar)
M.P. Chandrakantharaj Urs, J. 1. There petitions are disposed of by this common order, as all of them raise the same questions of law which are required to be decided by us under section 23(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. 2. Though the assessees and the assessment years vary, for purposes of convenience, the facts stated in S.T.R.P. No. 23 of 1985 are narrated in order to answer the questions which are common to all, except that in S.T.R.P. No. 23 of 1985 an additional question regarding limitation also falls for consideration by us. 3. The facts leading to these petitions may be stated briefly and they are as follows : The petitioner, Dattaram Advertising Private Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, inter alia, carries on the business of running an advertising and consulting agency covering a variety of media for effective publicity depending on the customers and their advertising requirements. The petitioner-company prepares designs for advertisement in n...
Shanthi Industries Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: [1993]89STC190(Kar)
ORDERM.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.1. These sales tax revision petitions are by the assessee, M/s. Shanthi Industries, No. 10, Pampamahakavi Road, Shankarapuram, Bangalore 4. The assessee was aggrieved by the order dated March 28, 1981, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, I Circle, Bangalore, in purported exercise of his power under section 12-B(2) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, pertaining to the assessment year 1977-78. 2. The petitioner-assesses, a registered dealer under the Act, was required to furnish monthly returns and pay advance tax thereon in the relevant assessment year but the same was filed long after it was due and taxes due thereon had not been paid. In the result no tax was paid for the period of 12 months covered under the relevant assessment year. The advance tax payable on monthly turnover was Rs. 31,863.58 for the assessment year 1977-78. In the result, the maximum penalty provided at 1(1/2) times the tax not paid in time was worked out to Rs. 47,795 and a pe...
Venkataramanappa Vs. Narayanachar
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Oct-11-1990
Reported in: ILR1990KAR4069; 1990(3)KarLJ145
ORDERShivashankar Bhat, J.1. The trial Court no doubt has relied upon the Judgment of this Court in : ILR1990KAR2269 to hold that the petitioner has defaulted again and again and explanation is not forthcoming as to why the proceedings should not stop. The learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord also pointed out that on several occasions the petitioner has been committing default and earlier he was in arrears of rent since about the year 1983 and his conduct throughout does not require any sympathetic consideration.2. In I.L.R 1990 Karnataka 2269, Subhakar vs Lakshamma this Court stated that once a determination is made under Section 29(2), thereafter, the question of further determination does not arise and if there is any default by the tenant thereafter, it is the duty of the tenant to show cause |against any action under Section 29(4). As and when the tenant makes the deposit and if there is a delay, the showing cause should be a part of the action in depositing the rent. This ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »